THEORIES ON CRIME, PUNISHMENT AND YOUTH OFFENDING

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

CHAPTER 2 THEORIES ON CRIME, PUNISHMENT AND YOUTH OFFENDING

 INTRODUCTION

Hutchinson and Oltedal (2014) defines theories as interrelated sets of concepts and propositions that are organised according to a specific system in order to explain relationships within the social world. Theory, according to Pearson (2013) is a set of interrelated ideas that attempt to describe, explain, predict and ultimately control some class of events. The concept “theory” can be defined as a set of assumptions, suggestions, or known facts that try to provide a credible or rational explanation for the interactions among a group of observed phenomenon (May, 2018).
Theory plays a vital role in the explanation and understanding of problem behaviour and the discipline system currently used in South African schools, as well as how to deal with such behaviour. Theories (personality-, structure- and process) underpinning this study include biological theory, psychological and cognitive theory, behavioural theory as well as the systems theory. The strain theory of Merton (1940’s) and Agnew, Bianchi’s Tsedeka theory (1994), the Retributive model of Zehr (1990) and Braithwaite’s Reintegrative Shaming theory (1989) also add insight into the research problem. Furthermore, process theories and the punitive system theories as well as sociological theories are applied to the study, and together with the other theoretical perspectives incorporated in an alternative approach to discipline in South African schools.

 PERSONALITY THEORIES

Classical theories state that crime is committed as a result of using one’s free will to choose behaviour that brings pleasure or avoiding behaviour that brings pain (Regis-University, 2018). Thus according to this theory punishment would therefore deter acts violating the law (Regis-University, 2018). As studies of human and social behaviour developed, positivist theories of behaviour started replacing classical theories that stated that behaviour can be influenced by biological, psychological or sociological factors and that individuals have little or no control over their own behaviour (Regis-University, 2018). Personality theory describes criminal behaviour as the result of a defective personality or personality traits, for example aggression or impulsiveness and psychoanalytical theorists are of the opinion that criminal behaviour is a result of a mental disorder. According to this approach the criminal act is of less importance than the individual offender’s traits. The fact that a crime is committed is a symptom of the underlying personality or psychological disorder. Many different personality theories attempt to explain as to why people perform deviant behaviour (Crossman, 2018). For example, personality and psychological theory includes biological-, biosocial-, behavioural-, cognitive- and psychological or psychodynamic theory (Akers & Sellers, 2013).

Biological Theories

Biological theory attempts to explain that behaviour is predetermined and genetically founded. Steinberg (2008) concluded research on the following two questions in order to prove that biological theory does play a role in criminal activity. Firstly, why is it that risk taking increases between the phases of childhood and adolescene? Secondly, why does risk taking then decline between the phases of adolescence and adulthood? Evidence from research makes it clear that risk taking increases between childhood and adolescence because of the changes during puberty in the brain’s socio-emotional system, together with an enormous secretion of dopamine, leading to a surge of reward-seeking, particularly when in the company of peers (Steinberg, 2008). On the other hand, risk taking declines between adolescence and adulthood as a result of changes in the brain’s cognitive control system. These changes bring about the improved ability for the individuals’ capacity for self-regulation and occurs across adolescence and young adulthood. These changes are visibly noticed in structural as well as functional changes within the prefrontal cortex and its connections to other brain regions. Because of the interactive changes, mid-adolescence is a time of heightened vulnerability to reckless, risky behaviour (Steinberg, 2008).
Graves (2017) agrees with the findings and states that by using biological theories to explain the commission of crime, the emphasis falls on physiological reasons, for example that adolescents have not yet matured to the mental reasoning of adults. According to Anderson (2007) biological factors, for example hormonal changes in the body, may influence criminal behaviour (Anderson, 2007). Biological theories can be categorised within the paradigm of positivism which proclaims that all types of behaviour are regulated by factors outside the individual’s control (Criminal-justice-research-Centre, 2018). Biological positivism emphasises that genetics and chemical imbalances in the brain may cause criminal activities (Regis-University, 2018).

Psychological and Cognitive Theories

Psychological theories form part of the personality theories and may be used to explain how the individual’s personality predisposes them to commit crimes or become involved in antisocial and offending behaviour. Criminologists that base their studies on psychological theories, explain crime as the consequence of individual factors, for example, negative experiences in early childhood and inadequate socialisation that leads to incomplete cognitive development and/or criminal thinking patterns (Byrne, 2015).
The psychodynamic theory, based upon Freud’s psychoanalytical perspective, focuses on a person’s personality, especially the experiencing of internal conflicts and struggles (Valdez, 2017), and explains criminal behaviour as a result of psychological immaturity and weak self-control in certain situations (Andrews & Bonta, 2010). Major risks factors include impulsivity, disturbed interpersonal relationships, low success rates in school or work and a weak superego, weak ego and problems in the family system. A weak super ego results in an individual displaying little guilt, a reckless disregard for rules and early misconduct and antisocial attitudes. A weak ego may result in generally poor skills in any field of endeavour (Andrews & Bonta, 2010).
Mood disorders are classed within the psychodynamic theory of crime as conduct disorders. These disorders describe “criminal offenders that may have a number of mood disorders that may manifest as depression, rage, narcissism and social isolation” (Criminal-justice-research-Centre, 2018:4-5). Children with conduct disorder struggle to follow rules and to behave in socially acceptable ways (Boccaccini, 2008) (Criminal-justice-research-Centre, 2018). Conduct disorders are displayed as emotional and behavioural problems in young adults. Children diagnosed with conduct disorders, are often labelled by others as “bad,” “delinquent,” or even “mentally ill.” Children with conduct disorders are more likely to display aggressive behaviour toward others, such as bullying (Boccaccini, 2008) (Criminal-justice-research-Centre, 2018). Adolescents with conduct disorders could also be involved in early sexual activity, property offences, lying and stealing, breaking into houses and stealing possessions. They may also steal from stores. Early intervention offers these individuals a greater probability for improvement and for ultimately living a productive and successful life (Criminal-justice-research-Centre, 2018). According to Glenn (in Glenn, Johnson & Raine, 2013) mood disorders could also be classed as antisocial personality disorder as per the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM5) (Glenn, 2013). Glenn (2013) states that the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM 5) classification of antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) defines it as individuals engaging in repetitive irresponsible, delinquent, and criminal behaviour beginning in childhood or adolescence and continuing into adulthood (Glenn, 2013).
Cherry (2017) refers to Bandura to provide another version of psychodynamic theory. There are various psychological theories to explain how and why people learn behaviour and the complexity thereof. The psychologist Albert Bandura (Cherry, 2017) proposed a social learning theory that suggests that observation, imitation, and modelling perform a primary role in this process. Bandura’s theory is a combination of elements from behavioural theories (all behaviours are learned through conditioning) and cognitive theories (psychological influences such as attention and memory) (Cherry, 2017).
Elements of general personality and social psychology theories also manifest in social learning, cognitive behavioural and social cognition theories (Andrews & Bonta, 2010). The so called “Big Four” predictor variables of a crime risk, namely antisocial cognition, antisocial associates, history of antisocial behaviour and antisocial personality pattern, may be influenced or moderated by conditions in the individual’s environment such as family, school, leisure and neighbourhood (Andrews & Bonta, 2010). Cognitive theory is grounded in the idea that cognitive processes are at the centre of thoughts, emotions and behaviours and highlight what people are thinking instead of what they are doing (Neese, 2018). A definition of “cognitive” is the ability to process information and has to do with an individual’s ability to learn and understand (Anon., 2018). Jean Piaget, a Swiss psychologist, initially developed cognitive development theory, proposing that offenders fail to develop their moral judgement capacity beyond the pre-conventional level. Cognitive theory was further built upon by Lawrence Kohlberg (Byrne, 2015) and were further established in the 1980’s, based upon Healy’s claim in 1915 that, “bad habits of the mind” lead to criminal behaviour (Baro, 1999).
Behaviour can be modified by means of changing the way of thinking. A person needs to take responsibility and be held accountable for his actions. When referring to the way of thinking, it is important to keep in mind that paranoia, depression and other mental illness, may predispose certain individuals to committing offences and crimes. Feelings of worthlessness are common in major depression (Parekh, 2017), making low self-esteem a contributory factor in criminal behaviour. A study done by the Oxford University states that people diagnosed with depression are three times more likely to become involved in violent crimes like sexual offences and assault (Tran, 2015).

 PROCESS THEORIES

The key in understanding crime and the processes around crime, from this perspective, lies within socialisation. It is a fact “that learning and control theories both identify socialization, or the lack thereof, as the key to criminal behaviour” (Tibbetts & Schram, 2018: 287).
South Africa consists of a unique compilation of cultures and multi-ethnical groups creating difficulties when dealing with offences committed and the way that they are dealt with. Ovens (2010) gives a comparison between Western theories and the African approach. The Western theories attempt to analyse, predict and control human behaviour compared to the African approach that is in sync with a restorative approach and strives towards intuition and integration (Ovens & Prinsloo, 2010). Schoeman (in Louw & Van Wyk, 2016) agrees with this opinion and states that restorative justice is firmly rooted in African cultural traditions. Skelton (in Louw & Van Wyk, 2016) points out that there are several common factors between traditional African justice and restorative justice, namely that both processes aim for restoring the peace and reconciling harmony in the community; aim to promote social values and norms; focus on dignity and respect as central values; view crime as a harm done to the individual and the broader community; attempt to keep simplicity and informality within and during the procedure; values community participation; and place a high value on restitution and compensation by the offender (Louw & Van Wyk, 2016). Ovens (2010) is of the opinion that it is important to study the effect of culture and tradition on people’s behaviour, if we take into consideration and admit that culture may largely control the way in which we function and think. In the African culture the concept
“Ubuntu” inspires the rules of social interaction (Nafukho in Ovens 2010). Ubuntu meaning “humanity” and “a person is a person through others” and represents the rule of conduct and/or social ethic in the sense that it recognises humans as social beings with feelings and kindness who need to be with others (Ovens & Prinsloo, 2010).
Ovens (2010) states that it is important to accept the differences between people of different cultures in the treatment of offenders from a criminological perspective, both theoretically and practically, instead of using the variances to stigmatise and disadvantage them. However, in spite of the traditional inheritance of restorative justice and the knowledge and understanding of its principles, restorative justice does not play the role it deserves in South Africa’s criminal justice system (Louw & Van Wyk, 2016).
Differential association and social learning theory, re-integrative shaming and labelling theory, social bonding and control theories, deterrence and rational choice theories (process and punitive theories) all form part of process theories.

Differential Association and Social Learning Theory

The differential association theory holds that criminal attitudes, beliefs and rationalisations are learned through exposure to pro-criminal and criminal attitudes and behaviour patterns (Andrews & Bonta, 2010). The theory of differential association theory as developed by Sutherland (Yogi, 2014) explains that criminal behaviour is learned through interaction with others in a process of communication and social relationships within intimate personal groups (Yogi, 2014). Peers and others in the environment shape (teaches) values, norms, attitudes as well as techniques and motives for criminal behaviour. Yogi (2014), gives an exposition of Sutherland’s theory of differential association that consists of nine propositions:
1. Criminal behaviour is learned behaviour.
2. Criminal Behaviour is learnt through interaction and communication with others.
3. Criminal behaviour is learnt within intimate, close groups. Therefore other influences for example the media are secondary.
4. Techniques necessary to commit crime as well as the social transmission of attitudes, values, motivations and drives for committing the crime are learnt.
5. Favourable and unfavourable behaviour is learnt (according to definitions of legal codes).
6. A person is labelled a criminal when the number of unfavourable laws becomes too much.
7. These criminal associations may vary in frequency, duration, priority and intensity.
8. The process of learning criminal behaviour by association, is not restricted to association, and can also be learnt through other instruments of learning, for example though conditioning. A child may not understand the law, and decides to take sweets from a shop and gets away with it and is thus rewarded with the free sweets, from then on the child maintains this early onset criminal behaviour as it has not been punished.
9. Sutherland claims that criminality is not just dependant on associations but also through the wider context of the individual’s life.
An important feature of Sutherland’s theory is the intensity as well as the frequency of the interaction that takes place, as both are decisive for explaining developing criminal activity (Yogi, 2014).

CHAPTER 1  GENERAL ORIENTATION AND RATIONALE OF THE STUDY
1.1 INTRODUCTION
1.2 DEFINITION OF KEY CONCEPTS
1.3 AN EXPLORATION OF LITERATURE AND THE POTENTIAL APPLICATION OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE IN SCHOOLS
1.4 RESEARCH AIMS AND OBJECTIVES
1.5 STRUCTURE AND LAYOUT OF THIS DISSERTATION
1.6 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 2  THEORIES ON CRIME, PUNISHMENT AND YOUTH OFFENDING
2.1 INTRODUCTION
2.2 PERSONALITY THEORIES
2.3 PROCESS THEORIES
2.4 STRUCTURAL THEORIES
2.5 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 3  RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
3.1 INTRODUCTION
3.2 RESEARCH PARADIGMS/PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE
3.3 RESEARCH DESIGN
3.4 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.5 ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS
3.6 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 4  IDENTIFYING LEARNERS AT RISK OF OFFENDING BEHAVIOUR
4.1 INTRODUCTION
4.2 IDENTIFYING RISK FACTORS
4.3 MEASURES OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES AND ATTITUDES (MCAA)
4.4 APPLICATION OF THE MCAA
4.5 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 5  OBSERVATION OF DISCIPLINARY CASE STUDIES
5.1 ORIENTATION
5.2 CASE COMPARISON
5.3 DISADVANTAGEOUS EXPOSED DURING THE DISCIPLINARY PROCESS
5.4 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 6  A PROPOSED RESTORATIVE JUSTICE MODEL FOR SOUTH AFRICAN SCHOOLS
6.1 INTRODUCTION
6.2 RESTORATIVE JUSTICE MODELS AS METHODS OF ACHIEVING DESIRED CHANGE IN BEHAVIOUR
6.3 IMPORTANCE OF VICTIM/OFFENDER MEETINGS
6.4 APPLICATION OF A RESTORATIVE JUSTICE MODEL FOR SOUTH AFRICAN SCHOOLS
6.5 A COMPARISON BETWEEN SCHOOL DISCIPLINE CURRENTLY AND THE NEW COMPREHENSIVE SUPPORT MODEL (RESTORATIVE DISCIPLINE)
6.6 RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 7  CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1 INTRODUCTION
7.2 THE RESEARCH AIM AND OBJECTIVES OF THIS STUDY
7.3 RESEARCH DESIGN
7.4 THE VALUE OF THE RESEARCH
7.5 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH
7.6 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE SCHOOL COMMUNITY
7.7 CONCLUSION
Bibliography
GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT